Click here if you are using Microsoft's
defective Windows Explorer browser. Why?
Posted January 29, 2003
Perhaps I should thank George W. Bush. His manner of presentation and choice of words makes it so much easier for me not to reconsider my bias against the war he so much desires. His addiction to lying, for instance, makes it so much easier for me to oppose his war rather than carefully consider the arguments for and against.
Now, it's not as if I'm utterly unable to see good rationales for going to war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The guy's a tyrant, and overthrowing tyrants is, on the whole, a good thing.
But, as I've been telling myself and others for over thirty years, not every conceivable good thing should be done by our government. And anyone who blanches at this wisdom I look upon as something of a fool, if not a knave. (They are often both.)
Now, what of Bush's lies? I've written about this elsewhere, in a column entitled Our Empire's Liar-in-Chief.
But, let's say Bush didn't lie over and over. What then? Does the current situation merit a declaration of war against Iraq?
A friend of mine is compiling the reasons pro and con, on a page with nifty (as opposed to annoying) frames:
http://www.cartoonlad.com/frame1.html
It needs a lot of work, and my friend invites contributions. I've done a little, and will do more. But for the present, let's look at just a few of his listed reasons for war from that page:
Before we answer this, please note that we are now currently at war with Iraq: the embargo, the fly-bys, these are all acts of war. What has been going on since the Gulf War is a warm war (surely not Cold one), and we might as well call it as such. The current debate must then be seen as between those who argue for escalation of the current war and those who wish to keep the war warm
and not heat it up. Almost never mentioned is a very different debate: for or against the de-escalation of the conflict. For every reason to escalate now, we really should counter not only with an argument for staying put,
but also with an argument for disengagement. Since this added dimension to the debate is almost never drawn out, the debate can only be incomplete. And as for a full-scale attack now, as opposed to one in the future: the reason to attack now is because we expect Saddam to be stronger in the future, and thus cause more casualties on our side. That's the heart of the matter. And there are more complexities here (and duplicities on the American side) than usually admitted. What if we should have no intention of attacking Saddam Hussein's regime? What if we simply encourage his neighbors do this job?
Does an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction destabilize the region? Now, it is quite true that when the U.S. supported his war against Iran, and later gave him the green light to attack Kuwait, Iraq destabilized the region. But these most destabilizing of events had U.S. complicity. Perhaps the U.S. shouldn't encourage destabilizing policies so eagerly. Regarding Saddam's murderous tyranny over Kurds and others in his country, these are much more troubling. Do they destabilize the region? This debate rarely gets very sophisticated, alas.
This prediction strikes me as bordering on the ridiculous. Obviously they've worked to some degree. And if they aren't working well enough now, can they be made to work better? The proponents of escalation rarely discuss options. They obviously prefer war to careful international policing and investigative efforts. And in their hurry to war, they don't want to waste time refining the inspection methods. But what about disengagement? The subject of inspections is all about demanding that Iraq disarm itself. But what if we just let Saddam have his weapons? Sure he's a bad guy, but there's little reason to expect him to use these weapons if not attacked. To believe otherwise is to believe that Saddam is irrational. But there's little evidence for this. Saddam can be deterred. The reason he warred against Iran and Kuwait is because he was encouraged to do so, rather than discouraged from those tragic and heinous wars. (Yes, the argument for disengagement rests on expecting normal deterrence to work, and accepting the fact that some governments we don't like will nevertheless have weaponry, and do some bad things within their borders; one could argue that this is just being realistic about all government.)
Since it looks like we are indeed going to war, I hope it will be easy. I don't want a years-long fight. The occupation will be trouble enough. But I do note that if the war will be easy, it does make the case for war a bit weaker. If Saddam's regime is now weak, then why are we hurrying to war? There are complexities and contradictions here that rarely get addressed.
If they would, then perhaps they'd support an insurgency movement instead? Could Americans (either through the government or individually) fund and train an effort that would destabilize the government? This policy option would, after all, put at risk those who have the most to gain from the effort, rather than Americans, who have almost nothing to gain.
Well, Saddam has indeed monetarily supported the families of suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel, so getting rid of his despicable government would help a bit. But Iraq has little to do with the Palestine Problem, and having it be democratic (or merely occupied, which is more likely for some time after conquest) will have little or no effect on negotiating a Levantine peace. American foreign policy is the biggest encumbrance to that peace right now, though Americans and Israelis usually pretend otherwise.
Well, he has funded a few Palestinian familes. Why hasn't he done more? For the same reason that it was a terrorist network that attacked America on 9/11/01 and not a disgruntled nation-state: nation-states are vulnerable to retaliation, networks less so. This is so obvious that intelligent people should dismiss this argument now, and at once. The argument has no merit whatsoever. Were S. Hussein to give bombs or bugs to terrorists, and were we to establish a link, we'd nuke the bastard, no questions asked. You know it, I know it. Look what we did to Afghanistan (and quite justly, I think), for merely harboring terrorists! Saddam is surely no fool. Giving weapons to terrorists would be a cause for war, little debate needed, and S. Hussein knows this. The warmongers' what if
scenario is silly.
This seems unlikely, doesn't it? The extent to which Americans misunderstand Islamic values and perspectives astounds me...
The Afghanistan war was a logical part of the response. The proposed Iraqi war is not. It takes us far afield from the basic problems America has in the mid-East. We were attacked by people with several fairly large complaints against America: the fact that American warriors trod on Arabian sands, and the fact that Americans support the state of Israel far more than they support Palestinians, all the while Israel is deemed to tyrannizes
the Palestinians. Now, fighting Iraq will in no way address the first complaint; it will exacerbate it. And it does nothing to improve our relationship vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine. And war against Iraq is an opportunity cost to further hunting down of actual terrorists. Switching our attention to Iraq (or adding an Iraqi front to the conflict) makes little sense in terms of fighting the terrorists who attacked us, and does a lot to create further terrorists.
Well, I'd agree that the U.S. government and leadership is far less evil than the Iraqi government and leadership! But here's a further question to ask: as America escalates its war with Iraq without provocation by said nation, does it become more evil in the process? And here's another follow-up question: Since the government of Iraq is a tyranny, its people are less responsible for their government's actions than America's citizens are for their government. So, given an injustice by the American state (and one can think of many), should one's respect and sympathy for Americans decrease, while our concern and respect for Iraqis remain steady? And given America's many past foreign policy crimes and blunders, might not a new stance in the world begin by confessing past error, to increase world sympathy and provide a standard of judgment that the world could trust? And if that's the case, why hasn't our government done this?
This is, to me, the best case for government intervention abroad, to repair costly messes that we ourselves have created. And, if the case were made, it might actually convince many in the mid-East. So why hasn't the case been made? Given our government's proclivity to lie, why hasn't the case been more than made? Why not overstated?
The question has been asked and answered; even many warmongers admit that they seek a larger, more robust American Empire. (Curiously, not a few of these warmongers are British!) The thing to remember about this question is that an empire is not simply one thing. The British Empire was not the same as the Spanish Empire which was not the same as the Holy Roman Empire (neither holy, nor Roman, nor...) which was not the same as the Roman Empire proper which in turn differed from the Greek, Mitanni, Babylonian, and Egyptian empires. And Mursilis of the Hittites was not the same as Alexander of Macedonia. Some progress in empires is possible, and I admit I like our American Empire a lot better than all previous. But that doesn't mean that a republic sans empire might not be a better thing, a more noble state, worthy of creating. And that's what I support, though I realize it is by now an old, discarded notion.
It may very well be in the interest of our ruling class. I'm yet to be convinced that it is in the interest of the people. But the people themselves are so little interested in their interest (so to speak), perhaps we shouldn't worry about this much. Let them reap the sorrow and the glory that they hanker for, in between bouts of television watching. Perhaps those of us who favor republic over empire should stop calling the proposed escalation our
war, and the U.S. our
country, and see ourselves a little more realistically: as exiles within our own borders.
So I thank George Bush for cementing my stance against the American Empire. When I read some of the warbloggers, I admit that a few of their arguments seem almost convincing. But when Bush himself talks, my resolve strengthens. If I had written the above before Bush's State of the Union Address, I might not have been so resolutely anti-war in my comments.
Is this good? It depends on who you ask.
 |
Click here for this site's general fair-use permissions statement. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|